DOCSLIB.ORG

2021 Most Effective Basins Funding Allocations Rationale

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2021 Most Effective Basins Funding Allocations Rationale Most Effective Basins Funding Allocations Rationale May 27, 2021 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program Office Most Effective Basins Funding In the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 Appropriations Conference Report, an increase to the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) Budget was provided for “state-based implementation in the most effective basins.” This is an increase of $1.25 million over the FY 2020 appropriation of $6 million. This document describes the methodology EPA followed to establish the most effective use of these funds and the best locations for these practices to be implemented to make the greatest progress toward achieving water quality standards in the Chesapeake Bay. EPA will use the same methodology and funding allocation that was used in FY 2020 for the original $6 million allocation. A funding addendum for the additional $1.25 million follows this existing rationale and methodology. The most effective basins to reduce the effects of excess nutrient loading to the Bay were determined considering two factors: cost effectiveness and load effectiveness. Cost effectiveness was considered as a factor to assure these additional funds result in state-based implementation of practices that achieve the greatest benefit to water quality overall. It was evaluated by looking at what the jurisdictions have reported in their Phase III Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs) as the focus of their upcoming efforts, and by looking at the average cost per pound of reduction for best management practice (BMP) implementation by sector. Past analyses of cost per pound of reduction have shown that reducing nitrogen is less costly by far than reducing phosphorus1. Based on that fact, EPA determined that the focus of this evaluation would be to target nitrogen reductions in the watershed. Evaluating the load reduction targets in all the jurisdictions’ Phase III WIPs shows that the agricultural sector is targeted for 86 percent of the overall reductions identified to meet the 2025 targets collectively set by the jurisdictions. This means that most of the BMPs to be implemented in the watershed in the coming years are focused on the agricultural sector. On average, BMPs placed in the agricultural sector have been identified as the most cost effective BMPs. Data collected on BMP cost efficiency show the average cost per pound of nitrogen reduction for agricultural BMPs is approximately $24. This is much more cost-effective than the practices of stream restoration, shoreline erosion and sedimentation control that have been shown to cost about $354 per pound. Comparatively, the average cost of urban BMPs is roughly $2,259 per pound of nitrogen reduction, nearly 100 times that for agriculture. Based on this information, agricultural BMPs for reduction of nitrogen are the most cost effective to implement. 1 The information, largely collected over a 15-year period by the Chesapeake Bay Program Office for use in the Partnership’s Watershed Models, includes 1) the cost per unit of Best Management Practices (BMP), for over 200 BMPs, from contracted economists, and 2) the effectiveness of each BMP (the pounds of nutrients and sediment reduced per unit of BMP), mostly from “Expert Panels” made up of academics, agronomists, and practitioners working in the source sectors, including agriculture. The estimates of nutrient loads reduced to the Chesapeake Bay are from the 6th-generation Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Model [Chesapeake Bay Program, 2017. Chesapeake Assessment and Scenario Tool (CAST) Version 2017d. Chesapeake Bay Program Office, last accessed April 2020]. 1 Most Effective Basins Funding Allocations Rationale May 27, 2021 Load effectiveness2 is a measure of the ability of management practices implemented in a given area (basin) to have a positive effect on dissolved oxygen in the Bay. Load effectiveness is the combination of three factors: land to water, delivery, and dissolved oxygen response. Each of these factors is described below. The land to water factor represents how nitrogen applied to the land moves through the soil and is transported to the water. It is a measure of the natural propensity of the landscape to deliver nitrogen to waterways. In the phase 6 model, this factor considers groundwater recharge rates, average available water capacity, and the fraction of land in the piedmont carbonate hydrogeomorphological region by basin to determine the average nitrogen load expected to reach the local streams and rivers. An area with a land-to-water factor of 1 will deliver twice as much nitrogen as an area with a land-to-water factor of 0.5, all else being equal. The land to water factor does not consider land management, which is a separate analysis of available reductions. The delivery factor is an estimate of the fraction of load reaching a stream, in a given basin, that will eventually make it to tidal waters. In the phase 6 model, it is calculated as a combination of stream and river factors. Stream factors generally apply to streams and reservoirs included in the National Hydrography Dataset that have an average annual flow less than 100 cubic feet per second and are calculated empirically using the USGS’s SPARROW (SPAtially Referenced Regression On Watershed attributes) model. River factors apply to rivers and reservoirs with an annual flow greater than 100 cubic feet per second and are simulated by the CBP’s Phase 6 dynamic model using HSPF (Hydrologic Simulation Program - Fortran). The final factor is a measure of the Bay’s dissolved oxygen response to nutrient loads from different areas of the watershed. It is based on estuarine circulation patterns and biogeochemical transformations. In the 2017 estuarine Water Quality and Sediment Transport Model (this is the official title of the model used to evaluate dissolved oxygen response to nutrient input throughout the Bay), the oxygen response factor is calculated as the impact of a unit nitrogen load reduction on the critical segments or segments of the Bay. The critical segments were defined in the 2010 Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (Bay TMDL) as the set of segments where, if dissolved oxygen criteria are met, the remaining segments of the Bay will all meet their dissolved oxygen goals. These critical segments are the estuarine monitoring segments CB3MH, CB4MH, CB5MH, and POTMH for deep water and CB3MH, CB4MH, and CB5MH for deep channel. Each area of the watershed (basins) has a different effect on these critical segments. As an example, the Susquehanna River, located at the northern end of the Bay, has a greater effect on the dissolved oxygen in the deep water/deep channel area of the Bay than the James River, which is in the lower portion of the Bay. Nitrogen from the Susquehanna has a relatively long residence time in the Bay and must pass through the critical monitoring segments, while much of the nitrogen from the James passes out to the ocean through the Bay mouth. In order to evaluate the load effectiveness for a given basin, the phase 6 modeling suite was used to simulate the effect of nitrogen loading from agricultural lands in each identified basin. This evaluation included both the watershed model and the estuarine model. Through this evaluation a value of load effectiveness was assigned to each basin. This information was then used to 2 Load effectiveness is the same measure known as relative effectiveness used to calculate allocations as described in Section 6.3 of the 2010 Bay TMDL. It was also used to calculate Phase WIP III nitrogen planning targets in 2017. 2 Most Effective Basins Funding Allocations Rationale May 27, 2021 determine which basins are the most effective at reducing the impact of nitrogen to the critical Bay segments identified in the previous paragraph. Funding Allocation Methodology EPA will provide the most effective basins funding for nitrogen reduction from the most cost- effective BMPs in the agricultural sector to the Chesapeake Bay watershed jurisdictions that have committed to reducing the agricultural contribution of nitrogen in their Phase III WIPs, i.e. Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. The District of Columbia does not have an agricultural commitment through 2025. Using the state Phase III WIPs, EPA identified each state’s nitrogen reduction commitment between now and 2025. The total load of these obligations to reduce nitrogen from Agriculture was added and then a percentage for each of those jurisdictions was determined. The $6 million Most Effective Basins (MEB) money will be allocated using the individual percentages for those jurisdictions to complete implementation work in the most effective basins identified within their boundaries. Table 1 shows, by jurisdiction, the percentage of agricultural sector implementation proposed in each WIP and the resulting MEB funding allocation. Table 1 Percentage of Agricultural Sector Implementation Proposed in Each WIP and the Resulting MEB Funding Allocation Phase III WIP Ag Percent of Total MEB Funding Jurisdiction Nitrogen Commitment Nitrogen Commitment Allocations ($) (million pounds) Proposed DC 0.0 0.00% - DE 2.2 6.08% $ 364,540 MD 4.2 11.60% $ 695,940 NY 0.5 1.33% $ 79,536 PA 22.3 61.59% $ 3,695,112 VA 6.7 18.50% $ 1,110,191 WV 0.3 0.91% $ 54,681 Totals 36.2 100.00% $ 6,000,000 Determining the best locations for use of the additional funding for MEB comes from the rigorous evaluation that has been explained above. The charge given by Congress was to spend this money in the most effective basins. The questions to be answered are, what size basins provide the best and most targeted use of these funds to get the maximum load reduction possible? Where are the most effective basins located? 3 Most Effective Basins Funding Allocations Rationale May 27, 2021 Basins can be delineated in many shapes and sizes.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Nanjemoy and Mattawoman Creek Watersheds
    Defining the Indigenous Cultural Landscape for The Nanjemoy and Mattawoman Creek Watersheds Prepared By: Scott M. Strickland Virginia R. Busby Julia A. King With Contributions From: Francis Gray • Diana Harley • Mervin Savoy • Piscataway Conoy Tribe of Maryland Mark Tayac • Piscataway Indian Nation Joan Watson • Piscataway Conoy Confederacy and Subtribes Rico Newman • Barry Wilson • Choptico Band of Piscataway Indians Hope Butler • Cedarville Band of Piscataway Indians Prepared For: The National Park Service Chesapeake Bay Annapolis, Maryland St. Mary’s College of Maryland St. Mary’s City, Maryland November 2015 ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this project was to identify and represent the Indigenous Cultural Landscape for the Nanjemoy and Mattawoman creek watersheds on the north shore of the Potomac River in Charles and Prince George’s counties, Maryland. The project was undertaken as an initiative of the National Park Service Chesapeake Bay office, which supports and manages the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail. One of the goals of the Captain John Smith Trail is to interpret Native life in the Middle Atlantic in the early years of colonization by Europeans. The Indigenous Cultural Landscape (ICL) concept, developed as an important tool for identifying Native landscapes, has been incorporated into the Smith Trail’s Comprehensive Management Plan in an effort to identify Native communities along the trail as they existed in the early17th century and as they exist today. Identifying ICLs along the Smith Trail serves land and cultural conservation, education, historic preservation, and economic development goals. Identifying ICLs empowers descendant indigenous communities to participate fully in achieving these goals.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    Photo by King Montgomery. by Photo Table of Contents 7 Foreword 8 Fly Fishing Virginia 11 Flies to Use in Virginia 17 Top Virginia Fly Fishing Waters 19 Accotink Creek 21 Back Creek 25 Big Wilson Creek 29 Briery Creek Lake 33 Chesapeake Bay Islands Beasley. Beau by Photo 37 Conway River 41 Dragon Run 43 Gwynn Island 47 Holmes Run Beasley. Beau by Photo 51 Holston River, South Fork 53 Jackson River, Lower Section 59 Jackson River, Upper Section 63 James River, Lower Section 67 James River, Upper Section 71 Lake Brittle 75 Lynnhaven River, Bay, & Inlet 79 Maury River 4 Photo by Eric Evans. Eric by Photo 83 Mossy Creek 87 New River, Lower Section 91 New River, Upper Section 95 North Creek 97 Passage Creek 99 Piankatank River 101 Rapidan River, Lower Section Beasley. Beau by Photo 105 Rapidan River, Upper Section 109 Rappahannock River, Lower Section 113 Rappahannock River, Upper Section 117 Rivanna River 121 Rose River 125 Rudee Inlet 129 Shenandoah River, North Fork Photo by Beau Beasley. Beau by Photo 133 Shenandoah River, South Fork 137 South River 141 St. Mary’s River 145 Whitetop Laurel Creek Chris Newsome. by Photo 148 Private Waters 151 Resources 155 Conservation 156 Other No Nonsense Guides 158 Fly Fishing Knots 5 Arlington 81 66 Interstate South U.S. Highway River 95 State Highway 81 Other Roadway 64 64 Richmond Virginia Boat Launch 64 460 Fish Hatchery Roanoke Hampton 81 95 To Campground 77 58 Hermitage 254 To Grottoes To 340 Staunton ay rkw n Pa ema Hop 254 ver Ri 250 h ut So 340 340 1 Waynesboro To 2 Staunton 2 3 664 64 624 To Charlottesville 250 er iv R h ut 64 So 624 To 1 Constitution Park–Home of Charlottesville Virginia Fly Fishing Festival 2 Good Wading 3 Low water dam South River 136 South River outh River is one of the most underrated fisheries in the Old Dominion.
    [Show full text]
  • Class a Wild Trout Streams
    CLASS A WILD TROUT STREAMS STATEWIDE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS REVIEW STREAM REDESIGNATION EVALUATION Drainage Lists: A, C, D, E, F, H, I, K, L, N, O, P, Q, T WATER QUALITY MONITORING SECTION (MAB) DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY STANDARDS BUREAU OF POINT AND NON-POINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION December 2014 INTRODUCTION The Department of Environmental Protection (Department) is required by regulation, 25 Pa. Code section 93.4b(a)(2)(ii), to consider streams for High Quality (HQ) designation when the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC) submits information that a stream is a Class A Wild Trout stream based on wild trout biomass. The PFBC surveys for trout biomass using their established protocols (Weber, Green, Miko) and compares the results to the Class A Wild Trout Stream criteria listed in Table 1. The PFBC applies the Class A classification following public notice, review of comments, and approval by their Commissioners. The PFBC then submits the reports to the Department where staff conducts an independent review of the trout biomass data in the fisheries management reports for each stream. All fisheries management reports that support PFBCs final determinations included in this package were reviewed and the streams were found to qualify as HQ streams under 93.4b(a)(2)(ii). There are 50 entries representing 207 stream miles included in the recommendations table. The Department generally followed the PFBC requested stream reach delineations. Adjustments to reaches were made in some instances based on land use, confluence of tributaries, or considerations based on electronic mapping limitations. PUBLIC RESPONSE AND PARTICIPATION SUMMARY The procedure by which the PFBC designates stream segments as Class A requires a public notice process where proposed Class A sections are published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin first as proposed and secondly as final, after a review of comments received during the public comment period and approval by the PFBC Commissioners.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix M: Aquatic Biota Monitoring Table
    NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT APPENDIX M: AQUATIC BIOTA MONITORING TABLE Final – May 2020 Aquatic Habitat, BIBI, and FIBI Scores and Rankings for Monitoring Sites within the Vicinity of the I-495 & I-270 Managed Lanes Study Corridor Aquatic Habitat BIBI FIBI MDE 12-digit Watershed Site Waterway Source Site I.D. Year Narrative Narrative Narrative Name Coordinates Method Score Score Score Ranking Ranking Ranking Fairfax County Middle 38.959552, Potomac Watersheds1 Dead Run FCDPWES -77.176163 1646305 2008 -- -- -- 19.1 Very Poor -- -- Fairfax County Middle 38.959552, Potomac Watersheds1 Dead Run FCDPWES -77.176163 1646305 2009 -- -- -- 15.5 Very Poor -- -- Fairfax County Middle 38.959552, Potomac Watersheds1 Dead Run FCDPWES -77.176163 1646305 2010 -- -- -- 30.5 Poor -- -- Fairfax County Middle 38.959552, Potomac Watersheds1 Dead Run FCDPWES -77.176163 1646305 2011 -- -- -- 29.7 Poor -- -- Fairfax County Middle 38.959552, Potomac Watersheds1 Dead Run FCDPWES -77.176163 1646305 2012 -- -- -- 13.3 Very Poor -- -- Fairfax County Middle 38.959552, Potomac Watersheds1 Dead Run FCDPWES -77.176163 1646305 2013 -- -- -- 12.5 Very Poor -- -- Fairfax County Middle 38.959552, Potomac Watersheds1 Dead Run FCDPWES -77.176163 1646305 2014 -- -- -- 38 Poor -- -- Fairfax County Middle 38.959552, Potomac Watersheds1 Dead Run FCDPWES -77.176163 1646305 2015 -- -- -- 27.7 Poor -- -- Fairfax County Middle 38.959552, Potomac Watersheds1 Dead Run FCDPWES -77.176163 1646305 2016 -- -- -- 27.4 Poor -- -- Fairfax County Middle 38.959552, Potomac Watersheds1
    [Show full text]
  • NON-TIDAL BENTHIC MONITORING DATABASE: Version 3.5
    NON-TIDAL BENTHIC MONITORING DATABASE: Version 3.5 DATABASE DESIGN DOCUMENTATION AND DATA DICTIONARY 1 June 2013 Prepared for: United States Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program 410 Severn Avenue Annapolis, Maryland 21403 Prepared By: Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe Street, PE-08 Rockville, Maryland 20850 Prepared for United States Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program 410 Severn Avenue Annapolis, MD 21403 By Jacqueline Johnson Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin To receive additional copies of the report please call or write: The Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe Street, PE-08 Rockville, Maryland 20850 301-984-1908 Funds to support the document The Non-Tidal Benthic Monitoring Database: Version 3.0; Database Design Documentation And Data Dictionary was supported by the US Environmental Protection Agency Grant CB- CBxxxxxxxxxx-x Disclaimer The opinion expressed are those of the authors and should not be construed as representing the U.S. Government, the US Environmental Protection Agency, the several states or the signatories or Commissioners to the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin: Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia or the District of Columbia. ii The Non-Tidal Benthic Monitoring Database: Version 3.5 TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................. 3 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • News Release Address: Email and Homepage: U.S
    News Release Address: Email and Homepage: U.S. Department of the Interior Maryland-Delaware-D.C. District [email protected] U.S. Geological Survey 8987 Yellow Brick Road http://md.water.usgs.gov/ Baltimore, MD 21237 Release: Contact: Phone: Fax: January 4, 2002 Wendy S. McPherson (410) 238-4255 (410) 238-4210 Below Normal Rainfall and Warm Temperatures Lead to Record Low Water Levels in December Three months of above normal temperatures and four months of below normal rainfall have led to record low monthly streamflow and ground-water levels, according to hydrologists at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in Baltimore, Maryland. Streamflow was below normal at 94 percent of the real-time USGS gaging stations and 83 percent of the USGS observation wells across Maryland and Delaware in December. Record low streamflow levels for December were set at Winters Run and Pocomoke River. Streamflow levels at Deer Creek and Winters Run in Harford County have frequently set new record daily lows for the last four months (see real-time graphs at http://md.water.usgs.gov/realtime/). Streamflow was also significantly below normal at Antietam Creek, Choptank River, Conococheague Creek, Nassawango Creek, Patapsco River, Gunpowder River, Patuxent River, Piscataway Creek, Monocacy River, and Potomac River in Maryland, and Christina River, St. Jones River, and White Clay Creek in Delaware. The monthly streamflow in the Potomac River near Washington, D.C. was 82 percent below normal in December and 54 percent below normal for 2001. Streamflow entering the Chesapeake Bay averaged 23.7 bgd (billion gallons per day), which is 54 percent below the long-term average for December.
    [Show full text]
  • Morgan County Relocation Package
    Morgan County Relocation Package Long & Foster/Webber & Associates, Realtors® 480 W. Jubal Early Drive, Suite 100 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Office: 540-662-3484 - Toll Free: 800-468-6619 www.webberrealty.com TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------2 GOVERNMENT -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------3 TAXES ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4-5 LICENSE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5-6 IMPORTANT NUMBERS -----------------------------------------------------------------------7 HEALTH ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------8-9 CLIMATE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------10 POPULATION --------------------------------------------------------------------------------10-11 CHURCHES ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------12 TEMPORARY LODGING -----------------------------------------------------------------12-14 SHOPPING ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------15 TRANSPORTATION ---------------------------------------------------------------------------16 SCHOOLS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------17-18 LIBRARIES ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------19
    [Show full text]
  • Flood Event of 5/27/1946 - 5/29/1946
    Flood Event of 5/27/1946 - 5/29/1946 Chemung Site Flood Stage Date Crest Flow Category Basin Stream County of Gage County of Forecast Point Chemung 16.00 5/28/1946 23.97 132,000 Moderate Chemung Chemung River Chemung Chemung Corning 29.00 5/28/1946 37.74 -9,999 Major Chemung Chemung River Steuben Steuben Elmira 12.00 5/28/1946 21.20 -9,999 Major Chemung Chemung River Chemung Chemung Lindley 17.00 5/28/1946 22.87 75,000 Major Chemung Tioga River Steuben Steuben West Cameron 17.00 5/28/1946 18.09 17,600 Moderate Chemung Canisteo River Steuben Steuben Juniata Site Flood Stage Date Crest Flow Category Basin Stream County of Gage County of Forecast Point Spruce Creek 8.00 5/27/1946 9.02 5,230 Minor Juniata Little Juniata River Huntingdon Huntingdon Main Stem Susquehanna Site Flood Stage Date Crest Flow Category Basin Stream County of Gage County of Forecast Point Bloomsburg 19.00 5/29/1946 25.20 234,000 Moderate Upper Main Stem Susquehanna River Columbia Columbia Susquehanna Danville 20.00 5/29/1946 25.98 234,000 Moderate Upper Main Stem Susquehanna River Montour Montour Susquehanna Harper Tavern 9.00 5/28/1946 9.47 7,620 Minor Swatara Swatara Creek Lebanon Lebanon Harrisburg 17.00 5/29/1946 21.80 494,000 Moderate Lower Main Stem Susquehanna River Dauphin Dauphin Susquehanna Hogestown 8.00 5/28/1946 9.43 8,910 Minor Conodoguinet Conodoguinet Creek Cumberland Cumberland Created On: 8/16/2016 Page 1 of 4 Marietta 49.00 5/29/1946 54.90 492,000 Major Lower Main Stem Susquehanna River Lancaster Lancaster Susquehanna Penns Creek 8.00 5/27/1946 9.79
    [Show full text]
  • 02070001 South Branch Potomac 01605500 South Branch Potomac River at Franklin, WV 01606000 N F South Br Potomac R at Cabins, WV 01606500 So
    Appendix D Active Stream Flow Gauging Stations In West Virginia Active Stream Flow Gauging Stations In West Virginia 02070001 South Branch Potomac 01605500 South Branch Potomac River At Franklin, WV 01606000 N F South Br Potomac R At Cabins, WV 01606500 So. Branch Potomac River Nr Petersburg, WV 01606900 South Mill Creek Near Mozer, WV 01607300 Brushy Fork Near Sugar Grove, WV 01607500 So Fk So Br Potomac R At Brandywine, WV 01608000 So Fk South Branch Potomac R Nr Moorefield, WV 01608070 South Branch Potomac River Near Moorefield, WV 01608500 South Branch Potomac River Near Springfield, WV 02070002 North Branch Potomac 01595200 Stony River Near Mount Storm,WV 01595800 North Branch Potomac River At Barnum, WV 01598500 North Branch Potomac River At Luke, Md 01600000 North Branch Potomac River At Pinto, Md 01604500 Patterson Creek Near Headsville, WV 01605002 Painter Run Near Fort Ashby, WV 02070003 Cacapon-Town 01610400 Waites Run Near Wardensville, WV 01611500 Cacapon River Near Great Cacapon, WV 02070004 Conococheague-Opequon 01613020 Unnamed Trib To Warm Spr Run Nr Berkeley Spr, WV 01614000 Back Creek Near Jones Springs, WV 01616500 Opequon Creek Near Martinsburg, WV 02070007 Shenandoah 01636500 Shenandoah River At Millville, WV 05020001 Tygart Valley 03050000 Tygart Valley River Near Dailey, WV 03050500 Tygart Valley River Near Elkins, WV 03051000 Tygart Valley River At Belington, WV 03052000 Middle Fork River At Audra, WV 03052450 Buckhannon R At Buckhannon, WV 03052500 Sand Run Near Buckhannon, WV 03053500 Buckhannon River At Hall, WV 03054500 Tygart Valley River At Philippi, WV Page D 1 of D 5 Active Stream Flow Gauging Stations In West Virginia 03055500 Tygart Lake Nr Grafton, WV 03056000 Tygart Valley R At Tygart Dam Nr Grafton, WV 03056250 Three Fork Creek Nr Grafton, WV 03057000 Tygart Valley River At Colfax, WV 05020002 West Fork 03057300 West Fork River At Walkersville, WV 03057900 Stonewall Jackson Lake Near Weston, WV 03058000 West Fork R Bl Stonewall Jackson Dam Nr Weston 03058020 West Fork River At Weston, WV 03058500 W.F.
    [Show full text]
  • Building Stones of Our Nation's Capital
    /h\q AaAjnyjspjopiBs / / \ jouami aqi (O^iqiii^eda . -*' ", - t »&? ?:,'. ..-. BUILDING STONES OF OUR NATION'S CAPITAL The U.S. Geological Survey has prepared this publication as an earth science educational tool and as an aid in understanding the history and physi­ cal development of Washington, D.C., the Nation's Capital. The buildings of our Nation's When choosing a building stone, Capital have been constructed with architects and planners use three char­ rocks from quarries throughout the acteristics to judge a stone's suitabili­ United States and many distant lands. ty. It should be pleasing to the eye; it Each building shows important fea­ should be easy to quarry and work; tures of various stones and the geolog­ and it should be durable. Today it is ic environment in which they were possible to obtain fine building stone formed. from many parts of the world, but the This booklet describes the source early builders of the city had to rely and appearance of many of the stones on materials from nearby sources. It used in building Washington, D.C. A was simply too difficult and expensive map and a walking tour guide are to move heavy materials like stone included to help you discover before the development of modern Washington's building stones on your transportation methods like trains and own. trucks. Ancient granitic rocks Metamorphosed sedimentary""" and volcanic rocks, chiefly schist and metagraywacke Metamorphic and igneous rocks Sand.gravel, and clay of Tertiary and Cretaceous age Drowned ice-age channel now filled with silt and clay Physiographic Provinces and Geologic and Geographic Features of the District of Columbia region.
    [Show full text]
  • Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network: 2005-2014
    Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network: 2005-2014 NY 6 NTN Stations 9 7 10 8 Susquehanna 11 82 Eastern Shore 83 Western Shore 12 15 14 Potomac 16 13 17 Rappahannock York 19 21 20 23 James 18 22 24 25 26 27 41 43 84 37 86 5 55 29 85 40 42 45 30 28 36 39 44 53 31 38 46 MD 32 54 33 WV 52 56 87 34 4 3 50 2 58 57 35 51 1 59 DC 47 60 62 DE 49 61 63 71 VA 67 70 48 74 68 72 75 65 64 69 76 66 73 77 81 78 79 80 Prepared on 10/20/15 Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network: All Stations NTN Stations 91 NY 6 NTN New Stations 9 10 8 7 Susquehanna 11 82 Eastern Shore 83 12 Western Shore 92 15 16 Potomac 14 PA 13 Rappahannock 17 93 19 95 96 York 94 23 20 97 James 18 98 100 21 27 22 26 101 107 24 25 102 108 84 86 42 43 45 55 99 85 30 103 28 5 37 109 57 31 39 40 111 29 90 36 53 38 41 105 32 44 54 104 MD 106 WV 110 52 112 56 33 87 3 50 46 115 89 34 DC 4 51 2 59 58 114 47 60 35 1 DE 49 61 62 63 88 71 74 48 67 68 70 72 117 75 VA 64 69 116 76 65 66 73 77 81 78 79 80 Prepared on 10/20/15 Table 1.
    [Show full text]
  • River Watch Spring 2010
    The Newsletter of Potomac RiveRkeepeR, Inc. Volume 7, Issue 1, Winter 2010 495 HOT Lanes Construction Polluting In This Issue Accotink Creek Agricultural Pollution in W. Virginia page 2 s snow pummeled northern Virginia, APotomac Riverkeeper took action against a major polluter in Fairfax Stormwater Regulations Stalled County, VA. page 3 As you might know, a portion of the I- 495 High Occupancy Toll (“HOT”) Lanes From the Board construction site is severely damaging page 4 Accotink Creek, the Potomac River, and the Chesapeake Bay. Sediment pollution News in Brief is leaving the site and has entered page 5 Accotink Creek and its tributaries on numerous occasions. Potomac Riverkeeper’s 10th Anniversary Potomac Riverkeeper and two individuals page 6 sought to end this problem by notifying Fluor-Lane LLC, the HOT Lanes developers, of our intent to sue under the Clean Water Upcoming Events Act (CWA) if Fluor-Lane continues to violate page 7 Virginia law and allow the pollution to enter Accotink Creek. Coverage of our Mattawoman WWTP Permit action ran in The Washington Post. page 8 Flour-Lane has not stopped polluting despite numerous complaints from the public and inspections from state Polluted water is leaving the HOT Lanes Get the DIRT Out agencies. If Fluor-Lane does not stop the construction site and entering Accotink Creek. Photo by Kris Unger. As you just read, some developers allow polluted sludge pollution and comply with the law, legal to run into our rivers and streams, leaving taxpayers action may be one of the few remaining the stream. He also made site visits and with a hefty clean up bill.
    [Show full text]